Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Actually no. You're not correct. At least with the EC. With representation in the Senate you are.
States have a certain amount of EC votes. According to the population. So a state like California and Texas that has large populations are going to have more EC votes than Alaska or Idaho because those states don't have very many people.
I believe the calculation, I could be wrong on this, is the number of people your state sends to the House of Reps plus the number of Senators they send to the Senate. So states like Alaska or Idaho are going to have only a small handful of EC votes. California and Texas are going to have many times the amount of votes than Alaska or Idaho.
So Alaska only has 3 electoral votes, Idaho has 4, Texas has 38 and California has 55.
Your theory applies to the Senate. Every state sends 2 people to the senate no matter the population. So everyone has the same representation in the Senate.
EXCEPT
Those who live in Washington DC. The people who live in Washington DC have no representation in the Senate and only one person representing them in the House and that person isn't allowed to vote.
Washington DC does have 3 electoral votes for president.
We're both right. I have explained my reasoning many times on this board. I don't think I have to you so I don't mind doing so again.
California has 55 EC votes. It has a population of 40 million. There is one EC vote per 727,000 people.
Alaska has 3 EC votes. It has a population of 740,000. There is one EC vote per 246,000 people. That is inherently unfair on Californian voters (before you conservatives get all het up you can do the same for Texas). For it to be truly fair, California should have 162 EC votes, or alternatively, Alaska 1 (which is impossible because each Senator represents 1EC vote from memory)...